Donstheman:Story line is over complicated. Thats it, it could have been simplier, but instead they went for something nuttier than a squirel turd.

Like Yahtzee said you had to be a fan and had played the other games to get the story, I am a fan as I said and I enjoyed the storyline. Going to MGS1 (gasp im delving into the past) the story was set in 2005 or 2003 not exactly sure on the date and the game released in 98 it is somewhat futuristic and some parts are crazy that i completely agree (like in MGS2 flying un-man'd gun copters....6-7 years into the future they have gun copters that suddenly can depict good guys from bad!?)But they kept it simple in terms of who the bad guys are and who you gotta kill. (your objective: destroy metal gear!!!) Liquid=trying to enslave human race so Liquid=Bad.

Also on a side note I think another bonkers part was the fact Solid Snake goes into a ROOM FULL OF MICROWAVES and miraculously even though his entire body is getting thrashed his face escapes the room with nothing on it. I mean come on!!! it was the most exposed part of his body!!! even his eyeball thingy went boom!

So in short i think some parts of the storyline are understandable and enjoyable and some parts are out there and kinda flawed. I think it is because I was a fan from MGS1 made it easier for me to throw out the koooky parts of the story and just love the game and story.

Also I apologize to anyone reading my post cause that's just the way my mind works, I think in bits and pieces that jump back n forth between points just try and bare with me.

That sortof fits into the "Arguing over the internet is just like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard." because he's still arguing over the internet...whatever, it's still annoying when someone is wrong on the internet.

That sortof fits into the "Arguing over the internet is just like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard." because he's still arguing over the internet...whatever, it's still annoying when someone is wrong on the internet.

But... you just argued with some1 arguing over the internet.....so isn't that arguing over the internet?!?!?

That sortof fits into the "Arguing over the internet is just like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard." because he's still arguing over the internet...whatever, it's still annoying when someone is wrong on the internet.

But... you just argued with some1 arguing over the internet.....so isn't that arguing over the internet?!?!?

Tempdude0:The problem there is that the boss isn't inside your head when you're doing these things. If he were, those plans would be revealed. There aren't many ways to hide what you're doing when someone can see what you're thinking.

Just in case you didn't know, Rose and her son didn't have nanomachines. This is easily deducible as the A.I's don't know the relation of John (the son) and Raiden. Aplying this simple limitation in the example I showed, the obtained information from the boss's cameras are limited to the position, amount and quality of the cameras... Just like the nanomachines. Come on, this is very simple. You don't understand? That's because you don't wanna understand it or don't wanna lose the argument.

Tempdude0:Even assuming they can only get a "feel" for what's going on, we have biological "tells" that would give most people away.

What that has to do with anything?

Tempdude0:Don't ask me why the child was so important, but for some reason it was since his wife felt the need to hide it from the patriots.

Maybe because it was HER SON?

Tempdude0:As for liquid, he was working for the patriots...Well, liquid Ocelot was...Wait, I'm getting confused here.

Simple. Ocelot was working for the patriots, even though he had other agenda. He made all that "Liquid Ocelot" thing to deceive the A.I's, and make them believe he was Liquid, in order to force them to use Solid Snake as their counterattack measure. Making a checkmate, ignoring the success of Solid, Ocelot will win.

Tempdude0:Snake was railing against the patriots, so helping him would help them how?

He wasn't railing against the patriots. He was railing against Liquid. The most obvious thing in the game, geez.

Tempdude0:People may attempt to deceive them and circumvent their setup. The patriots have a way into these peoples head. Why not just use it willy nilly on anyone even tangentially related to their operations, or anyone of importance for that matter?

Break their own rules to make it all boring? You sure know how to criticize the writing.

Tempdude0:I've said the plot goes convoluted for a while. Check a few posts back. You probably missed it with all that reading you weren't doing. Seeing as I've only said "convoluted" as opposed to "overly convoluted" I guess that particular misunderstanding goes down as my bad.

You didn't catch my drift. I exposed that the "over-convoluted and confusing plot" to be rather simple.

Picky me? You gotta be kidding me. And you must really use quotes, I can't connect that "correction" on anything I've said. Self hypnosis? When?

Tempdude0:Fine, in order. As a young man he worked as a GRUE Major (MGS 3) but at the end was revealed to be working for the KGB as ADAM, but under the DCI (that'd be the Director of the CIA) Later, he worked with Foxhound terrorists (The thing I referred to as a mercenary group. Splitting hairs, but still not quite right on my part.) and at the end he is revealed to be in league with Solidus, the other evil clone. Now sporting liquid snakes arm (after losing it to the cyborg ninja) he slowly begins to be taken over the personality of liquid snake prompting the change to Liquid Ocelot. A possible explanation being his parentage. Finally, it is revealed to all be in act as Ocelot is in actuality working for Big Boss (MGS 4) There, a blow by blow.

My point wasn't order, my point is that you mixed up several stages of Ocelot's whole life into a single bad explained stage, ignoring the most simple objective in his life. He, as his mother, remained loyal to the end.

Tempdude0:As for the ninja, again, I may be mixing up two different ones. Lets ignore that. However, there was a ninja from N.A.S.A. Look it up.

You may want to show me something about it, although I don't think how this could be any relevant.

Tempdude0:To the language comment, the problem one person had was that perhaps people involved in this couldn't come to an agreement on what certain words meant. Since I was working from the dictionary, there was no interpretation needed for my speech. I was in no way saying my word choice lent objectivity to my arguments. That's just silly. At least read what I'm writing please.

Based in your own speech, I stated that your arguments weren't objective. Then you replied that you were objective because you were using the dictionary. Who's not reading?

Tempdude0:The examples may make it tedious, but aside from pointing out similar flaws in similar works, what would you have me do to prove my point? Would you like me to just spout off that I R RITE! without backing it up?

Arguments do not need examples. They're only an addition as you have said. If your examples instead of helping, distract, then they're not good examples at all.

"Arguing over the internet is just like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard."

Just drop it everyone who is arguing against Tempdude0. Though i must admit, it's fun watching you all completely annihilate Tempdude0 through his own writing which he claims is well written and clean.

Hmmm, i'm torn between stopping you all or letting you continue. What to do, what to do...

That sortof fits into the "Arguing over the internet is just like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard." because he's still arguing over the internet...whatever, it's still annoying when someone is wrong on the internet.

But... you just argued with some1 arguing over the internet.....so isn't that arguing over the internet?!?!?

No, i'm proving a point <.>;....

Don't try to get me to respond to start an over the internet argument with me!!! its not happinin Mr. lol!!!

VeryOblivious:Just in case you didn't know, Rose and her son didn't have nanomachines. This is easily deducible as the A.I's don't know the relation of John (the son) and Raiden. Aplying this simple limitation in the example I showed, the obtained information from the boss's cameras are limited to the position, amount and quality of the cameras... Just like the nanomachines. Come on, this is very simple. You don't understand? That's because you don't wanna understand it or don't wanna lose the argument.

It's obvious that he knows that rose and her child don't have nanomachines. The point is it doesn't make any sense for the AI's not to put nanos in them.

VeryOblivious:What that has to do with anything?

Everything? It is the essence of understanding what the nanobots do. How hard is this? Honestly?

VeryOblivious:Maybe because it was HER SON?

A lot of people have son's, why would this one be any different. If Raiden having a son would be important at all to the AI's, don't you think they would have implanted nanos in his girlfriend?

VeryOblivious:Simple. Ocelot was working for the patriots, even though he had other agenda. He made all that "Liquid Ocelot" thing to deceive the A.I's, and make them believe he was Liquid, in order to force them to use Solid Snake as their counterattack measure. Making a checkmate, ignoring the success of Solid, Ocelot will win.

Except the nano's should know, at which point the plot falls apart.

VeryOblivious:He wasn't railing against the patriots. He was railing against Liquid. The most obvious thing in the game, geez.

Solid grouped them together, you're nitpicking, badly.

VeryOblivious:Break their own rules to make it all boring? You sure know how to criticize the writing.

Yes, it's called a plot device, and a bad one in this instance.

VeryOblivious:You didn't catch my drift. I exposed that the "over-convoluted and confusing plot" to be rather simple.

Then you proved his point that Kojima has filled MGS4 (and I think the series in general) with useless verbose blather to try and conceal a very simple plot.

VeryOblivious:Picky me? You gotta be kidding me. And you must really use quotes, I can't connect that "correction" on anything I've said. Self hypnosis? When?

This is back to the Ocelot malarkey about convincing things that are in his brain that he is Liquid. Come on, simple plot that you just explained, keep up.

VeryOblivious:My point wasn't order, my point is that you mixed up several stages of Ocelot's whole life into a single bad explained stage, ignoring the most simple objective in his life. He, as his mother, remained loyal to the end.

Wait, liquid is his own mother? Now I'm confused. Loyal to who?

VeryOblivious:You may want to show me something about it, although I don't think how this could be any relevant.

Only relevant in pointing out the absurdity of the story. One of the major problems was all of the story threads he created 20 years ago when he made the first two Metal Gear games. The plot was never intended to go this far, it was just a very 'video gamey' stealth game. Unfortunately these less than serious plot points were dragged along as the story... matured? I suppose that's an appropriate term, though I hardly want to apply it here. Comics often suffer from this illness, many times resulting in rebooting the series to remove the useless garbage that builds up.

VeryOblivious:Based in your own speech, I stated that your arguments weren't objective. Then you replied that you were objective because you were using the dictionary. Who's not reading?

No, he never said because of the dictionary meaning of words that his view was objective (even if I tend to think he's the closest one to 'objective' that I've read here). So, you're the one not reading still.

VeryOblivious:Arguments do not need examples. They're only an addition as you have said. If your examples instead of helping, distract, then they're not good examples at all.

It appears he's mostly using examples out of frustration with Terra. Her inability to grasp simple concepts is unnervingly frustrating. I assume he is just trying to make things clear for her so he can have a reasoned debate. This is at least how I interpreted the debate thus far.

The problem with you arguing this is such a clear and simplistic story is that if that is indeed the case then it's bad writing in his inability to explain it in a much more concise and hopefully punchy manner. If the story isn't that simple then your simplistic explanation of it proves it is again bad writing because you think you know what is happening but don't and thus he failed to tell the story well.

Now...

As far as Terra is concerned, I think you don't understand things unless they are spelled out in unbelievable detail. This shouldn't be the burden of the writer. If they want to go and create an encyclopedia of information for you to read on your own time because the universe is interesting to you, then great for you and him.

The problem arises when you include this encyclopedia into the narrative of the story, it destroys the pacing of a story. A story needs a good flow, or pacing, for it to be 'good'. This has nothing to do with patience or length. Right now my favorite books are the Song of Ice and Fire series by Martin. These are not short books, but he keeps the pace flowing in a way that makes you want to read more, makes you want to learn about where a character is going. Very little detail he gives you isn't important to the current sub plot or over arching plot.

Kojima doesn't possess this skill. He indulges in the details to an extreme level that only pull you out of the story and force you to realize your just taking in inconsequential information that has no bearing on what is happening. I think sometimes Kojima forgets he has a visual medium and just reads pages of dialog to you. When you are in a visual medium you need to use it. The rest of the time he forgets you're in an interactive medium.

ihitterdal:This review, as always, was fucking hilarious. But there was one thing I noticed: the reference to AS. I found it funny, but it fit more into ADD/ADHD.

Hear here. I know Yahtzee has a lot of nitpickers taking apart his vids already, but I do feel the need to mention that he doesn't quite understand what AS is. OF course, encountering a lot of 14-year-old with self-diagnosed AS (as he so accurately slammed in his Tabula Rasa video) would cloud anyone's understanding of what AS means.

Evilducks:

Jumplion:

As my friend says (but i forgot to mention):

"Arguing over the internet is just like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard."

ihitterdal:This review, as always, was fucking hilarious. But there was one thing I noticed: the reference to AS. I found it funny, but it fit more into ADD/ADHD.

Hear here. I know Yahtzee has a lot of nitpickers taking apart his vids already, but I do feel the need to mention that he doesn't quite understand what AS is. OF course, encountering a lot of 14-year-old with self-diagnosed AS (as he so accurately slammed in his Tabula Rasa video) would cloud anyone's understanding of what AS means.

Evilducks:

Jumplion:

As my friend says (but i forgot to mention):

"Arguing over the internet is just like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard."

error17:Yahtzee needs to lie down a bit, get back into making them... funny...

Wasn't laughing this time around as much as the first dozen of vids.

Yes Im a MGS4 fan, but yahtzee didnt speak about the good things did he?

Pretty graphics, adequate gameplay, well rounded characters. Yeah, he covered the good bits as far as he's concerned. He also did it in a ratio that is very similar to the game. It's very poetic when you think about it.

I think Yahtzee held back really Evilducks. I think he coulda ripped MGS4 a bigger hole than he did. In a way even though i loved the game im kinda mad he didn't The review really would have been a knock out.

And just when people were starting to get reasonable...Why, why do they keep dragging me back in?

VeryOblivious:Just in case you didn't know, Rose and her son didn't have nanomachines. This is easily deducible as the A.I's don't know the relation of John (the son) and Raiden. Applying this simple limitation in the example I showed, the obtained information from the boss's cameras are limited to the position, amount and quality of the cameras... Just like the nanomachines. Come on, this is very simple. You don't understand? That's because you don't wanna understand it or don't wanna lose the argument.

As far as that goes, I was explaining that their lack of nanomachines was itself an issue. I realize they didn't have any in them. Please, please read what I write in it's entirety...And as for "quality, position, and amount" they're in your head with damn near perfect reception. At least make a coherent argument like "The sheer amount of data being tracked becomes infinitely harder to sort through as each person in an ever expanding list has nanomachines injected into them. Even with advanced AI's the sheer amount of data starts to hamper their ability to spy on others, leading to a breakdown in the chain of relevant information reported to them." There, I've handed you an argument. You can be grateful now...It's not a great one, but it works within the context of the series. It's slightly more plausible assuming you can overlook their ignoring of key people and relevant people in said peoples lives.

VeryOblivious:What that has to do with anything?

You made the camera metaphor, I'm running with it. Even if you can only understand base feelings with nanomachines, they should be able to pick up on the biological "tells" of a human being and extrapolate their actual intentions regardless of their super poker faces.

VeryOblivious:Maybe because it was HER SON?

Yes, it was HER SON!!1! But why would they find this important except as perhaps leverage over Raiden? Since the bastard was already deep in a certain river in Egypt they skipped keeping tabs on his wifey. I already conceded on that point. Keep up with the conversation. Indigo_Dingo already beat you to that particular punch.

VeryOblivious:Simple. Ocelot was working for the patriots, even though he had other agenda. He made all that "Liquid Ocelot" thing to deceive the A.I's, and make them believe he was Liquid, in order to force them to use Solid Snake as their counterattack measure. Making a checkmate, ignoring the success of Solid, Ocelot will win.

Snake was railing against the patriots, so helping him would help them how?

Combining two here, but I was referring to the AI's as "the patriots" I already admitted to this S.N.A.F.U. and as far as the "liquid ocelot" thing, the sheer amount of back and forth was ridiculous. More detail a few paragraphs down.

VeryOblivious:Break their own rules to make it all boring? You sure know how to criticize the writing.

Break WHO'S rules? Make WHAT boring? The idea that anyone can and will give information away is a time honored idea used in novels and movies throughout the years. It makes for more of a paranoid character than the gun toting he-man cigar smoker, but it would fit with how the nanobots were used. I realize that may not be what you're looking for, but I doubt that if Kojima is the master writer he's considered to be by his fans that he would have much trouble making it fun and appealing for you.

VeryOblivious:You didn't catch my drift. I exposed that the "over-convoluted and confusing plot" to be rather simple.

To the "convoluted" thing, I posted ocelots background, the one you said I made up half the stuff contained within. I'd like anyone here to tell me that they can understand why someone would go to the trouble of making a quadruple/quintuple agent. Really, any reason at all would be nice. Out of all the henchmen and even higher ups, why does everyone use the SAME GUY? That's where the "overly convoluted" part comes from.

VeryOblivious:My point wasn't order, my point is that you mixed up several stages of Ocelot's whole life into a single bad explained stage, ignoring the most simple objective in his life. He, as his mother, remained loyal to the end.

To your point about Ocelot and his mother and blah blah blah. What stages did I mix up? Where did I explain it badly? It's given in the order it happens. Just because you don't like the sound of a recap doesn't mean it isn't the way it is...OOOOOOOH, his OBJECTIVE! FUCK YEAH! Sure, his driving goal is simple. IT'S EVERYTHING ELSE THAT ISN'T! Stop being an idiot and respond to what I'm actually saying. His objective is in no way relevant to his nucking futz backstory within the context of this conversation.

VeryOblivious:You may want to show me something about it, although I don't think how this could be any relevant.

Uh, clarifying my earlier mistake. I figured I should do so. I had mixed up two characters, and an incorrect assertion rots away at a good argument unless the person who made said assertion admits their mistake and attempts to correct it.

VeryOblivious:Based in your own speech, I stated that your arguments weren't objective. Then you replied that you were objective because you were using the dictionary. Who's not reading?

You're, you aren't serious are you? I wasn't talking about my arguments there, I was talking about the speech contained WITHIN the arguments. Where is this difficult to understand? I even state that in the third to last sentence for gods sake!

VeryOblivious:Arguments do not need examples. They're only an addition as you have said. If your examples instead of helping, distract, then they're not good examples at all.

...Arguments require examples when one party fails to understand basic concepts. They're used to clarify intention. To paint a parallel for better understanding. In short, Terra didn't get anything I was saying. As a result I had to relate my ideas to concepts she was already familiar with.

Jumplion:Like I said:

"Arguing over the internet is just like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard."

Just drop it everyone who is arguing against Tempdude0. Though i must admit, it's fun watching you all completely annihilate Tempdude0 through his own writing which he claims is well written and clean.

Hmmm, i'm torn between stopping you all or letting you continue. What to do, what to do...

You know, it's only an annihilation if they're responding to what I've written in context. OTHERS lack of understanding in no way invalidates my arguments. I just makes them dumb. Take a look at Indigo_Dingo. He made a well reasoned argument based on what I had written and, shock and awe, I admitted that he was right. If someone here makes a good argument, I can be convinced. The problem is that 1) No one has made such an argument, Indigo_Dingo aside, and 2) Such an argument, for the most part, cannot arise simply because the position I'm taking lines up with the way things are. Now, I can't argue peoples enjoyment of this "fine game" but I can sure as shit argue that the game has flaws, flaws that can be seen from an objective standpoint.

To Evilducks...Why can't someone on the opposing side argue like that? I really, really, would like an asshat free discussion of the merits and flaws of the games. If people here could just make an argument like you or Indigo_Dingo, I would be so happy at finally being given the chance to give my brain a nice work out. The only reason I keep up on posting is because I just can't seem to stop. Each new post with an idiotic "breakdown" of my statements pushes me to respond. That, and I get a kick out of it, but mainly the first thing.

This is a whole lot of senseless debate when it is fairly clear what is being argued here, and why cherry-picking details will never solve this issue.

Simple: The game is only as good (or bad) as a person can accept it to be given the context of how the game is viewed. Be this genre, seriousness, or artistic (or lack thereof) integrity.

Someone said earlier that MGS is GI Joe taking itself seriously. It essentially is. It is pulp, like X-men, or V for vendetta, or even 30's era pulp literature insofar as genre, with a sprucing of serious themes and messages the author (or director) wishes to portray.

People who hate the game mostly do so because they cannot define the game as serious in pieces, but ultimately an entertainment piece used to portray some semi-serious messages to an audience. They fail to suspend their disbelief because they think that since parts of the game are serious, or because fans think it is some grandiosely designed piece or art, the entire scope of the game should be taken to par with the serious business only police.

Fans of the serious either knee-jerk react to that attitude, or tend to view the game as art that transcends the genre. The issue here is that the game does not have the pretensions of thinking itself that, only its fans do.

Hideo knows what the game is, and he knows what it isn't. Just because he delves into a little existentialism storytelling does not mean the game is the new Beyond Good and Evil (the book, not the fucking game, get out of the basement) and a church/studious group of philosophers should be formed around it. Nor should one structure a sad-belief system upon it. He simply wants to portray some real-life concepts and metaphors in a medium that he works in/enjoys. The man is a thinker, he does not want to make run-of-the-mill espionage games.

He wants to define his own niche, here, and he has. For many reasons people love him for it, take it overly serious, and doubters look upon it and feel the need to express the fact that it's not the Sistine chapel, or the Grapes of Wrath. As though, given the entertainment and playful self-deprecating values of the game, this were not obvious. Surprisingly, folks still need this pointed out to them, though.

The great divide (and really, the only subjective argument worth debating here) is with the game play to cut scene ratio presented in the game. Some love it, some hate it, some are in the middle ground. Either way, it is all simply an opinion, of which there is no clearly defined one truth to rule them all.

The mantra you folks want to use here, and it's one Hideo uses himself as a man with a taste for the existential, is that EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE.

Though trudging through the past 25 pages of reading, i realize i lost no not lost wasted alot of time, i do realize its my fault no i dont care if you flame i dont care if i get banned. Im looking for the second installment of Mailbag Showdown. where people waste their time trying to convince yahtzee. a person who obviously doesnt care what anyone thinks. Have a great Day im going into my "little corner" and playing my video games.

My head hurts after reading the latest page - so much debate over the story of MGS4 and whether its confusing or not - here's a hint - when 5 pages of arguements don't resolve the ingame elements, its probably confusing.

Pugjce:Hideo knows what the game is, and he knows what it isn't.

Given he made MGS2, I'd say he doesn't. He thinks a game is a movie - tisn't.

VeryOblivious:Just in case you didn't know, Rose and her son didn't have nanomachines. This is easily deducible as the A.I's don't know the relation of John (the son) and Raiden. Aplying this simple limitation in the example I showed, the obtained information from the boss's cameras are limited to the position, amount and quality of the cameras... Just like the nanomachines. Come on, this is very simple. You don't understand? That's because you don't wanna understand it or don't wanna lose the argument.

It's obvious that he knows that rose and her child don't have nanomachines. The point is it doesn't make any sense for the AI's not to put nanos in them.

Akiba ducked out, and hid it from his team - the people he was sleeping, living and fighting with - quite easily (They all just thought he was a dork, and, as you'd seen him in the other games, you did too). The Nanos are still voluntary, to a degree. Then we also have my "Raiden doesn't know he has a son, who looks as much like a chick as he does" thing.

The nanomachines don't quite work in the way you think. Think about it - a foreign object enters a hosts bloodstream and starts rapidly multiplying. If the host resists, the immuno system is gonna kick in, and the Nano's won't be sticking around long. Unless the host accepts (doesn't resist) the injection, the treatment will be a failure.

Evilducks:

VeryOblivious:Simple. Ocelot was working for the patriots, even though he had other agenda. He made all that "Liquid Ocelot" thing to deceive the A.I's, and make them believe he was Liquid, in order to force them to use Solid Snake as their counterattack measure. Making a checkmate, ignoring the success of Solid, Ocelot will win.

Except the nano's should know, at which point the plot falls apart.

Since when did either of them have Nanos, with the exception of FOXDIE?

Evilducks:The problem with you arguing this is such a clear and simplistic story is that if that is indeed the case then it's bad writing in his inability to explain it in a much more concise and hopefully punchy manner. If the story isn't that simple then your simplistic explanation of it proves it is again bad writing because you think you know what is happening but don't and thus he failed to tell the story well.

Now...

As far as Terra is concerned, I think you don't understand things unless they are spelled out in unbelievable detail. This shouldn't be the burden of the writer. If they want to go and create an encyclopedia of information for you to read on your own time because the universe is interesting to you, then great for you and him.

The problem arises when you include this encyclopedia into the narrative of the story, it destroys the pacing of a story. A story needs a good flow, or pacing, for it to be 'good'. This has nothing to do with patience or length. Right now my favorite books are the Song of Ice and Fire series by Martin. These are not short books, but he keeps the pace flowing in a way that makes you want to read more, makes you want to learn about where a character is going. Very little detail he gives you isn't important to the current sub plot or over arching plot.

Kojima doesn't possess this skill. He indulges in the details to an extreme level that only pull you out of the story and force you to realize your just taking in inconsequential information that has no bearing on what is happening. I think sometimes Kojima forgets he has a visual medium and just reads pages of dialog to you. When you are in a visual medium you need to use it. The rest of the time he forgets you're in an interactive medium.

Clearest argument yet! People claim Kojima is a frustrated filmmaker, but there are mountains of screenwriting textbooks that stress that too much expositional dialogue is deemed as BAD WRITING. The inability to tell a story with economy is BAD WRITING. Back-story and character development is VITAL, but there are more subtle and artful ways to portray it than simply telling the audience. You would think Kojima's knowledge of cinema history would have taught him that.

I thought the opening screen with "Zero Punctuation reviews METAL GEAR SOLID 4 TACTICAL ESPIONAGE ACTION GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS" where the game title was obviously too long to fit on the screen was funny. Quiet poke at it's length? :P

Also, for some reason I thought the "Metal Gear" "Metal Gear?" "METAL GEAR!" "BUGGER ME!" part was hilarious xD

When reviews are bought and sold with "exclusive access" and advertising wraps (no offense to The Escapist, EVE is pretty cool) I'm always happy to see a review that airs out all the lame stuff. And if it can be funny too, well, you just win.

"Arguing over the internet is just like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard."

Just drop it everyone who is arguing against Tempdude0. Though i must admit, it's fun watching you all completely annihilate Tempdude0 through his own writing which he claims is well written and clean.

Hmmm, i'm torn between stopping you all or letting you continue. What to do, what to do...

You know, it's only an annihilation if they're responding to what I've written in context. OTHERS lack of understanding in no way invalidates my arguments. I just makes them dumb. Take a look at Indigo_Dingo. He made a well reasoned argument based on what I had written and, shock and awe, I admitted that he was right. If someone here makes a good argument, I can be convinced. The problem is that 1) No one has made such an argument, Indigo_Dingo aside, and 2) Such an argument, for the most part, cannot arise simply because the position I'm taking lines up with the way things are. Now, I can't argue peoples enjoyment of this "fine game" but I can sure as shit argue that the game has flaws, flaws that can be seen from an objective standpoint.

A couple of things.

1. Ha, you actually replied to that? It wasn't even directed to you.

2. All Indigo_Dingo is doing is providing a simpler version of everyone's arguments, everyone else is trying to put some iceing on the cake.

3. Of course you are going to reply to anyone who answers you becase A) You think they are wrong B) You didn't read their posts clear enoughand C) You reply to their relpys by doing the exact same thing that they are doing, which is replying with completely irrelivant answers (which i admit, they are giving you more relivant answers then you are right now)

I'm not a hater (though i wouldn't be surprised if you replied to THAT) but your answers are the most irrelivant. Most of the examples are Indigo_Dingo proving you wrong.

One more thing, why are you even trying to defend yourself? If you havn't even played the game you can't make assumptions because people who HAVE played the game will prove you wrong. Tell me, i know you said you've played the game from your friends copy, but tell me did you play the whole game with all the cutscenes paying close attention and maybe looking at the MGS Database after a while?

I can not see what you are trying to defend here, you have nothing to defend. Infact the more you defend your point or what ever it is you're defending, the more you're going to get burned and the more you will either try or succesfully burn others (as i do admit, some of your arguments are slightly valid if only slightly)

I'm done with you, DO NOT reply to this because i will most likely not reply back anyway (that's a lie, I probably would 3:)

It may interest people to know that this thread currently has more than twice the responses of the Halo 3 thread.

Now I've never played MGS4 (or any Metal Gear game for that matter) so I won't say anything about it.

However, I will say that this game seems much more important to Sony fans than Halo 3 is to Microsoft fans. I wonder why ps3 people will rally so strongly around this one game while 360 people leave their biggest title to be torn apart.

At the risk of sounding like a pathetic fanboy I'll give my two theories. Either Sony fans need to rally because this is the only game on their system widely recognized as extremely good or Microsoft fans have too many high-quality titles to care what their system war foes think.

By the way, I'm not a pathetic fanboy. If I had the money I would buy a ps3 and several games for it. I'd still probably prefer the 360 because it has achievements and most multi-platform games are better on it.

Jumplion, saying somebody is being "burned" by everybody responding to him is immaterial without providing any examples of this actually occurring. I don't even believe you are arguing about the same thing he is. I'm actually curious as to what you think this discussion is about exactly.

Considering Tempdude0 has most of the facts in hand on MGS4 I think he's probably watched most, if not all of, MGS4. Since most of what he is arguing about is delivered through painfully long cut-scenes he doesn't need to be the one behind the controller, as the game-play is irrelevant to his argument.

Eldritch Warlord:It may interest people to know that this thread currently has more than twice the responses of the Halo 3 thread.

Now I've never played MGS4 (or any Metal Gear game for that matter) so I won't say anything about it.

However, I will say that this game seems much more important to Sony fans than Halo 3 is to Microsoft fans. I wonder why ps3 people will rally so strongly around this one game while 360 people leave their biggest title to be torn apart.

At the risk of sounding like a pathetic fanboy I'll give my two theories. Either Sony fans need to rally because this is the only game on their system widely recognized as extremely good or Microsoft fans have too many high-quality titles to care what their system war foes think.

By the way, I'm not a pathetic fanboy. If I had the money I would buy a ps3 and several games for it. I'd still probably prefer the 360 because it has achievements and most multi-platform games are better on it.

I think it's do to the increased viewership of ZP. Had Halo 3 come out last week I think the thread would easily be this long.